Military Review

"Planes look very similar." In the US, compared the Tu-160 and B-1B "Lancer"

76
Experts of The National Interest magazine compared the Russian strategic bomber Tu-160 with its American “competitor” B-1B “Lancer”.




The publication notes that “the planes are very similar in appearance, their roles are also basically the same,” but at the same time, the bombers are somewhat different from each other.

“The B-1B operates at low altitude and barely develops Mach 1,25 speed. In this regard, the bomber can not fly over the ground with a powerful air defense. However, the aircraft can receive radar images of objects on the ground and use high-precision weapon"- leads the article RIA News.

In addition, a few years ago (since the beginning of the operation in Iraq), the sighting-suspended container Sniper XR was added to the aircraft.

Russian Tu-160, experts say, is bigger and faster.

In addition, "Tu-160 has a maximum take-off mass of 272 thousands of kilograms and develops speed more than 2.05 Mach, while the American bomber is able to take off if its weight does not exceed about 216 thousand kilograms," the article says.

The magazine indicates that the Tu-160 "is traditionally armed with X-55 long-range cruise missiles," and is capable of carrying 12 such missiles. However, in Syria, the aircraft "involved a deep modification of the X-555 and barely noticeable for the X-101 radar," he also "has a X-102 cruise missile with a thermonuclear warhead."

The Tu-160 is one of the most powerful combat vehicles in the world with variable wing geometry. In 2015, the decision was announced to resume the production of missile carriers at the Kazan Aviation Plant. At the end of last year, the new aircraft was transferred from the final assembly shop to the company's flight test station. Thanks to modernization, the strategy's efficiency should increase by 60%.
Photos used:
http://www.globallookpress.com
76 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sergey985
    Sergey985 April 6 2018 09: 49
    +11
    Again these are NI experts. How much can you quote them?
    1. Shuttle
      Shuttle April 6 2018 10: 00
      +1
      Quote: Sergey985
      Again these are NI experts. How much can you quote them?

      Eccentrics
      1. hrych
        hrych April 6 2018 10: 32
        +19
        I must admit that the B1 is the best that the military American aviation industry has issued in history, the Valkyrie has not passed the limit of jet aircraft, like our Sotka. Blackbird, although it set a speed record, was also unable to go into the series and go from the category of experimental vehicles, limited itself to reconnaissance and removed from service, but in fact planned it as a bomber. B1 itself, the truth “A” was not inferior to Swan in speed (otherwise it lost), but our air defense and hounds of the Mig-25 and 31 type put an end to the concept of high-altitude breakthrough and we have a weakened B1b with the concept of low-altitude breakthrough with an envelope of the terrain, where sacrificed it with speed qualities and essentially turned into a dead end concept, which replaced the B-2. Comparing it in the form of a B1b with a Swan is difficult, they are hopelessly lost, our strategist to the marrow, and Lancer can’t carry strategic missiles, as a tactical bomb carrier is again soon redundant, here Tu22m3-type planes are preferable. And for carpet bombing, of course, the B-52. In principle, this wonderful aircraft is a typical example of how the stealthy concept of Stealth destroyed aviation development and even threw it back from the limit of jet aircraft in terms of performance characteristics exactly when they were sacrificed for the sake of steel technology. By the way, when they were bothering with a blow to the DPRK, they did not find anything better than B1b, but they even struck a blow. Low-altitude and subtle breakthrough, as a concept, is completely leveled and rendered detrimental by ZGRLS, both global-strategic (Wave, Container) and tactical (Sunflower and Taurus).
        1. Snakebyte
          Snakebyte April 6 2018 22: 57
          0
          If the concept of stealth is flawed and destroyed the development of aviation, then it is necessary to shoot the designers of the Su-57 and all the generals who took it into service and praise it in every possible way.
          1. hrych
            hrych April 7 2018 00: 16
            +2
            Su-57 is not invisible, kostruktiya, reducing ESR takes place to be, but insofar as. The market trend was also taken into account, and a joint event with India loomed here. By itself, this aircraft is not the main one, it will have a limited number, it has many conceptual innovations that do not apply to stealth, but rather, in particular, radar. But it runs around on it. His performance characteristics will not be impressive, but nonetheless. Also, we develop the same proven gliders, i.e. Su-30, 34, 35, Mig-35, etc. There is also a modernization of the Mig-31 and Tu22m3, the latter will go into series again, they will also build 50 Tu-160. Bredyatina with apexism with Pak-da did not take place, and Pak-fa grew up in something else, but the classic in the Russian Federation definitely defeated, also the MiG-41 will be with the motto: “Faster, stronger and higher!” Also, before the stealth fever, they won the concept of universality, i.e. the fighter became a fighter-bomber, such as the light f-16 and heavy f-15. They removed the F-111 analogue of our Su-24. Also thought to sentence and attack aircraft - Thunderbolt. Now they make the stealth test f-16 in the form of F-35, and replace f-15 with f-22. They simply refuse the rest. Although the station wagon, it will always be a medium fighter, a weak bomber and a no-fly attack aircraft. Partly, the Su-35, or rather, the Soviet Su-27, took the path of universalism, but nevertheless we are doing a replacement for a front-line bomb carrier, i.e. Su-34 is changing Su-24, attack aircraft in the form of Su-25 is also not written off. Those. already their universal characteristics on TTX lost to our profile. Our new replacement cars still increased their performance characteristics, and they still lowered their station wagons for the sake of invisibility. The level of superiority of the performance characteristics of our machines has become simply critical, one hope for invisibility. However, ours are working on the optical range, our Su-35 and Mig-31 also received powerful radar in terms of detection range not inferior to AWKSs like Sentry, which are the eyes of stealth, though of course not from a circular view, but only in the front hemisphere, where the phased array looks, it’s also possible to bring down the enemy directly from the detection distance, the x-172 missile hits 400 km, as Sentry and Sushka see. Without Sentry, downed x-172, Stealth will have to turn on their radar and goodbye invisibility. Something like this.
            1. Snakebyte
              Snakebyte April 7 2018 22: 23
              0
              An entertaining stream of consciousness. But, based on incorrect assumptions.
    2. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher April 6 2018 10: 25
      +5
      Quote: Sergey985
      How much can I quote?

      This is a branch of the Star channel under the flag of the United States, therefore, this garbage will be constantly quoted in the domestic media. Really in the NI world, authority is not for anyone.
      1. Hunter 2
        Hunter 2 April 6 2018 11: 14
        +13
        Damn, I want to get settled (half the rate) - “ANALYTIC” in NI belay !!! Yes, with My flight of imagination, I’m fast there - Senior Analyst, and then I will become Chief Analyst! laughing Mujumar - choke on! wassat
        Hde - write down? smile
        I have material! Arly Berg - against the seiner “Volna” and Abrams VS against the tractor Belarus; real battle rating !!! wink
        1. Avis-bis
          Avis-bis April 6 2018 14: 33
          +4
          Quote: Hunter 2
          Abrams VS vs Belarus tractor; real battle rating !!! wink

          I’ll also throw the idea: “Minuteman” against the peaceful Soviet PAZ.

    3. iaroslav.mudryi
      iaroslav.mudryi April 6 2018 13: 55
      +2
      Quote: Sergey985
      Again these are NI experts. How much can you quote them?

      THIS article, THESE X-farts, on THIS The resource (VO) was already published in the extended version two years ago:
      https://topwar.ru/93273-.html
  2. Dashout
    Dashout April 6 2018 09: 52
    +8
    Tu-160 Handsome!
    And with the X-102 even more beautiful :))
    1. sgazeev
      sgazeev April 6 2018 11: 01
      +1
      Quote: Dashout
      Tu-160 Handsome!
      And with the X-102 even more beautiful :))

      And their Fedot is not the same. laughing
  3. svp67
    svp67 April 6 2018 09: 52
    +18
    In the US, compared the Tu-160 and B-1B "Lancer"
    I don’t know how anyone, but I like “Lancer” like that ... would look and look
    1. just exp
      just exp April 6 2018 09: 56
      +16
      I would still admire and admire such a B-2
    2. bouncyhunter
      bouncyhunter April 6 2018 09: 56
      +7
      In the US, compared the Tu-160 and B-1B "Lancer"

      Yeah, we compared the gyrfalcons with the toad ...
      A photo really touches. lol
      1. just exp
        just exp April 6 2018 10: 31
        +2
        Do not underestimate the B1, the aircraft as a bomber is also worthy, although the Tu-160 analogue is still B1A, not B1B
        1. bouncyhunter
          bouncyhunter April 6 2018 10: 40
          +4
          I don’t hail B-1. It's just that NI, as always, confuses green with soft.
      2. Pete mitchell
        Pete mitchell April 6 2018 10: 34
        +3
        Quote: bouncyhunter
        photo really touches.

        pasha hi, how do you think that a plane crashed in a half a year due to a few drops of water ..
        The comparison, as often happens, is made to frighten the public: so that they are ready to increase costs. It seems that in '90 they were first shown Lebed - an article in flight international was very, very laudatory, with very unpleasant conclusions for them: it is difficult to intercept this car, but keeping them at a distance is very expensive
        1. bouncyhunter
          bouncyhunter April 6 2018 10: 38
          +3
          Hobo, hello! hi I have long regarded NI as a yellow tabloid newspaper. All their comparisons must be viewed through the prism of customization.
    3. rotmistr60
      rotmistr60 April 6 2018 09: 59
      +4
      I must admit that with humor you are all right. This photo really adds optimism. Regarding the article, we can say that the West is also objective, but for some reason only in relation to military equipment.
      1. Zhelezyakin
        Zhelezyakin April 6 2018 10: 05
        +9
        Quote: rotmistr60
        but for some reason only in relation to military equipment.

        The West is objective towards its adversary in assessments when it is necessary to draw a couple of zeros to the next military budget.
        1. LSA57
          LSA57 April 6 2018 10: 28
          +1
          Quote: Zhelezyakin
          The West is objective towards its adversary in assessments when it is necessary to draw a couple of zeros to the next military budget.

          do not decrease do not add. in the top ten good
        2. Pete mitchell
          Pete mitchell April 6 2018 10: 36
          +3
          Quote: Zhelezyakin
          when you need to add a couple of zeros to the next military budget.

          100%, in the top ten. I think this is the main task of the article: carry your money ..
    4. ICT
      ICT April 6 2018 19: 51
      +2
      and so ........
      1. ICT
        ICT April 6 2018 19: 59
        +3
        but for the sake of justice, the plane is still beautiful too, I would even say elegant
        [media = http: //]
        1. ICT
          ICT April 6 2018 20: 03
          +1
          on combat (go with 60 you could get it)
          1. svp67
            svp67 April 7 2018 04: 15
            0
            Quote: TIT
            on combat (go with 60 you could get it)

            NOT always and they have "extension arms"
            1. ICT
              ICT April 7 2018 12: 58
              0
              not in this case

        2. svp67
          svp67 April 7 2018 04: 13
          0
          Quote: TIT
          but for the sake of justice, the plane is still beautiful too, I would even say elegant

          And the planes, especially the combat ones, are overwhelmingly all ... predators. And also, there are LOTS of them ...
      2. svp67
        svp67 April 7 2018 04: 11
        0
        Quote: TIT
        and so ........

        Also not bad, it would be nice to see it in profile ...
        1. ICT
          ICT April 7 2018 12: 52
          0
          Quote: svp67
          it would be nice to profile him

          sure, not a problem
          1. svp67
            svp67 April 7 2018 17: 28
            0
            Quote: TIT
            sure, not a problem

            Handsome .... Is this how his centering is lost? Fuel is not uploaded correctly?
            1. ICT
              ICT April 7 2018 18: 18
              0
              I have no idea I won’t guess
              1. ICT
                ICT April 7 2018 18: 25
                +1
                and although .... croup lol

                The B-1B sits with the “croup” on the ramp after calculating the fuel transfer. ,,
  4. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter April 6 2018 09: 53
    +2
    Yes, a super-plane, in general. Extremely powerful and beautiful car. New engines and avionics - and another thirty years to scare the adversaries ...
  5. ivan0vitch
    ivan0vitch April 6 2018 10: 03
    +3
    "The effectiveness of the strategist should increase by 60%" is this how? range, speed, carrying capacity + 60% each? What is this notorious "effectiveness" measured in?
    1. Victor_B
      Victor_B April 6 2018 10: 06
      +2
      In the effects.
      What is unclear?
    2. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher April 6 2018 10: 38
      +3
      Purely theoretically, the effectiveness of the Tu-160 can be increased by improving avionics and expanding the range of TSA, thereby expanding the scope of its combat use. Currently, he is a pure strategist, whose task is to get into a given area and launch the Kyrgyz Republic, nothing more.
      1. Topotun
        Topotun April 6 2018 16: 55
        +1
        In fact, in Syria they used not only cruise missiles like. But free-falling bombs ....
        1. Avis-bis
          Avis-bis April 6 2018 16: 57
          +4
          Quote: Topotun
          In fact, in Syria they used not only cruise missiles like. But free-falling bombs ....

          The 160th has only “revolvers”.
          1. Topotun
            Topotun April 6 2018 17: 25
            +1
            It seems in the Internet passes:
            "In the two inside fuselage compartments, a different target load with a total mass of standard is placed - 22500 kg, maximum - up to 40000 kg:
            including 2 drum launchers with six strategic and tactical missiles X-55 and X-55M, 2 drum launchers with 12 short-range aeroballistic missiles X-15 (M = 5,0) with nuclear and non-nuclear warheads, various types of spacecraft -1500, thermonuclear and conventional bombs, mines. "
    3. Avis-bis
      Avis-bis April 6 2018 10: 43
      +7
      Quote: Rossia
      "The effectiveness of the strategist should increase by 60%" is this how? range, speed, carrying capacity + 60% each? What is this notorious "effectiveness" measured in?

      For example, to perform some sort of task, aircraft will require 40% less. :) And the methods for achieving this: so far, at least chipboard, well, or the result of an analysis of open sources by people in the subject.
      I’m not an expert, but, to speculate ... More economical engines will either allow N% more combat load to the same range or fly with the same load to a longer range, excluding the use of refueling vehicles (for which the Air Force still needs to find fuel, crews and spend the aircraft’s resource), which increase the time of approach to the target, unmask the unit, and indeed if the tanker is shot down, nobody will reach anywhere at all.
      The same will happen if new CDs and / or target designation tools are either lighter by N kg, and / or long-range, and / or more precisely.
      And so on.
      1. Victor_B
        Victor_B April 6 2018 11: 16
        +1
        Gentlemen!
        The question was - what to measure?
        And really - in what?
        The correct answer is nothing!
        Because further on it's just reasoning (measured in the length of the sofas).
        The debate on the "effectiveness" of tanks during the Second World War has not yet ended!
        And now we’ll precisely define it for airplanes that have never been only among themselves (forgive God for such a phrase about bombers), but almost did not participate in real hostilities.
        1. Hole puncher
          Hole puncher April 6 2018 12: 06
          +2
          Quote: Victor_B
          The question was - what to measure?

          The increase in efficiency is usually measured as a percentage. For example, the modernization of the B52 internal fuselage launcher increased the number of JDAM bombs, thereby increasing the number of targets that they hit, which increased the efficiency of one combat mission of this bomber. Previously, the B52 carried JDAM only on the underwing pylons.
          Available?
  6. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD April 6 2018 10: 05
    +5
    The difference between the planes is that Lancer is not bad in capabilities, and Swan is incredible. Comments are redundant. An article of Interest is a stream of consciousness common to publication.
  7. MoJloT
    MoJloT April 6 2018 10: 06
    0
    Their task was different for them, from here the tactics of use are different and the armament is like a meat cleaver compared to a scalpel.
  8. Victor_B
    Victor_B April 6 2018 10: 08
    +1
    Yeah! Compare square to green!
    There are more differences than similarities.
    Yes, they differ in everything! In all respects. And significantly.
    And not in favor of the Amerov machine.
    1. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher April 6 2018 10: 41
      0
      Admit, you do not know anything about the "bone" ...
      1. Victor_B
        Victor_B April 6 2018 11: 21
        0
        Well, by God, nothing at all!
        Unless about chicken.
        1. Hole puncher
          Hole puncher April 6 2018 12: 08
          0
          It was obvious. Why are you making such loud statements?
  9. Old26
    Old26 April 6 2018 10: 08
    +2
    Quote: bouncyhunter
    In the US, compared the Tu-160 and B-1B "Lancer"

    Yeah, we compared the gyrfalcons with the toad ...
    A photo really touches. lol

    Yes, stop posing as a jingoistic patriot. . It is clear that to cheat an opponent - do not feed bread in VO, just give it. The comparison of a gyrfalcon with a toad does not fit these two cars. Cars of about the same generation are very similar. The American has the worst performance characteristics, but this does not prevent him from remaining in the ranks. And 6 dozens of V-1Vs are still slightly better than one and a half dozen TU-160. Moreover, it is adapted to the use of the WTO. Ours can only strike with cruise missiles (maybe after the modernization it can also do the WTO).
    1. Town Hall
      Town Hall April 6 2018 10: 14
      +2
      Quote: Old26
      American has the worst performance characteristics



      The American has not the worst performance characteristics.And according to the main performance characteristics in the current realities, the EPR is an abyss between them. In favor of the American
  10. Dezinto
    Dezinto April 6 2018 10: 11
    +1
    There in "The National Interest" some homegrown expert got wound up!?, (Or ​​got it started) ?.
    Yesterday he compared aircraft carriers, today he took up the bombers. Cost - the day after tomorrow we are waiting for an article about submarines!
    1. LSA57
      LSA57 April 6 2018 10: 31
      0
      Quote: DEZINTO
      Cost - the day after tomorrow we are waiting for an article about submarines!

      and the day after tomorrow the shoes laughing
  11. Archivist Vasya
    Archivist Vasya April 6 2018 10: 19
    0
    Here, a couple of months, the article was about what B-1B decided to write off. So there’s no one to compare.
    1. Snakebyte
      Snakebyte April 6 2018 23: 00
      0
      A-10, too, were going to write off. About 20 years they gathered, eventually changed their minds.
  12. Dormidont
    Dormidont April 6 2018 10: 23
    0
    One American compared the ass and the finger
  13. gukoyan
    gukoyan April 6 2018 10: 23
    +1
    Well, they look a bit like that?
    Copyright now will begin to run around the courts, such as a violation of the rights of developers of the silhouette of the aircraft, etc.?
  14. Aleks2048
    Aleks2048 April 6 2018 10: 24
    +3
    In general, the analysis of comparison itself does not withstand the level of even sofa experts. Although for the NI level will do. Based on the fact that there are even questions to the analysis of comparison in the article, I do not want to ask. Not considered anything that should be considered. Neither operating conditions, nor probable scenarios of combat use, nor maintainability, nor probable ammunition kits, their availability in warehouses, nor what tasks these products should carry out, nor even just the sufficiency of the aircraft in operation for this product to perform its main combat missions for specific countries operating these aircraft. And so the analysis turned out wonderful and the author’s article turned out to be just a masterpiece. laughing
    1. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher April 6 2018 12: 10
      +1
      Their article is an ordinary shit on a fan, analysts zero ...
  15. Proton
    Proton April 6 2018 10: 26
    0
    These two aircraft can not be compared, our 160th is designed to defeat the enemy at maximum distance, and the Lancers for carpet bombing and robbery, hence the characteristics below am
    1. Town Hall
      Town Hall April 6 2018 10: 33
      +1
      Well yes. Stalin's falcons and German vultures
      1. Hole puncher
        Hole puncher April 6 2018 12: 17
        0
        Well, then he is right, although the presentation is tendentious. Bone has not been a strategist for a long time, even JASSM ER doesn’t. Good tactics with a powerful board and a wide range of weapons. Once upon a time, the Americans tried to record the tactical bomber Tu22M3 as a strategist, now the strategist B1B has retrained in tactics, an irony of fate.
  16. Romanenko
    Romanenko April 6 2018 10: 34
    0
    Quote: "The publication notes that" the aircraft are very similar in appearance ..... "
    As Shakespeare wrote - Like an oyster on a pear.
    They are only similar in principle to the design of the airframe, but otherwise there is nothing to compare.
    Lancer is certainly a powerful machine, if used in the traditionally American manner - for bombing settlements, military units not covered by air defense forces and industrial facilities.
    In all other respects, he is up to TU as to Beijing on all fours.
  17. Rusty General
    Rusty General April 6 2018 10: 38
    +2
    Ours are also unsightly.
    1. Every
      Every April 6 2018 10: 59
      +4
      It dill them cut into scrap metal (flag in the background). Moreover, they cut the newest aircraft.
  18. Victor_B
    Victor_B April 6 2018 11: 20
    0
    Quote: Puncher
    Admit, you do not know anything about the "bone" ...

    Well, by God, nothing at all!
    Unless about chicken.
    1. Hole puncher
      Hole puncher April 6 2018 12: 22
      +1
      Bone is the nickname B1 for American pilots. B One, which is consonant with bone - bone.
  19. Denis Obukhov
    Denis Obukhov April 6 2018 12: 15
    +1
    As the president said, opponents can catch up with us in any weapon, they will never have such soldiers as Roman Filipov.
  20. beer-youk
    beer-youk April 6 2018 15: 50
    0
    Very incorrect comparison. A sane person (not even an expert) will not compare the parameters of the 600th century chaise and the XNUMXth Merc.
  21. sib.ataman
    sib.ataman April 6 2018 16: 20
    0
    Fedot, but not that one! Ours is much cooler than any Wed *** th clouds. In the current conditions, Tu will be relevant for a long time. With the new PAK YES, the fairy tale is not so quickly affected, especially financially. And there, new super-duper technologies can come in time. Haste is needed for diarrhea.
  22. Vard
    Vard April 6 2018 20: 19
    +1
    Aircraft have a different concept ... Ours for breaking through powerful air defense ... And them ... For the Papuans, it’ll come down ...
  23. Stoler
    Stoler April 6 2018 23: 27
    +1
    B-1 BETTER THAN HUNDREDS !!! At least by the fact that they are HUNDREDS MORE !!!!
    1. Aleks2048
      Aleks2048 April 7 2018 00: 44
      0
      Nonsense. Aircraft were created for various military applications. This is the same as comparing the Russian Premier and the American Poseidon as a means of supporting infantry in the offensive. The quantitative ratio in this comparison is hardly acceptable. Because:
      1) Aircraft use a different combat load.
      2) If you just take a load of non-nuclear munitions, then Lebed is in a deep loss, but everything changes drastically if you take a nuclear munition and consider the tasks of these machines on Judgment Day.
      3) The number of these aircraft for Doomsday can be considered only in one plane as sufficient or not enough, and the presence of ammunition in warehouses and the possibility of returning the machine after completing a combat mission to replenish the ammunition and the need for ground procedures should also influence this. since the aircraft will perform the combat mission not separately from other troops, the main question becomes whether their impact together with other components of nuclear deterrence is sufficient to successfully inflict an unacceptable (disarming) strike on the first approach (joint strike).

      Absolute quantitative indicators certainly matter, but the issue of sufficiency is more important.
  24. kan123
    kan123 April 7 2018 18: 52
    +1
    The same thought came to me when I compared the German and Kalashnikov assault rifles - they look alike. I thought - what difference does it make, who is “stealing” from whom. Koshkin took Christie's scheme, and created the best technique in the world - the t-34. , while. That is, military science does not develop with "patents" - but with the facts that, for example. Asian crowds ousted from China grazed around China, - were attached to it, - with food, supplies - hunted by robbery, and could not tear themselves away from this "uterus." Further in China, they came up with wagons - to transport the entire rear, on carts - well, the whole army has an apartment, the supplies are herds (reaching up to a million heads, per annum) - these are families who live in wagons - like Kalaskas and when millions of horses die out all grass - the whole horde is removed, and occupies new lands. That is, from the philosophy of the development of military equipment - the Egyptians came up with chariots - the whole world adopted it. The Chinese have remade this into a moving rear, an eternal supply that requires only new captures to grow to infinity. Hindus came up with stirrups. They stuck their big toes, in some loops, on the rope, which was thrown over the horse, in the area of ​​the mane, behind it. As a result, we got stirrups that allowed us to destroy the chariots — you could already shoot from the horse with a bow, the main weapon of the cavalry — and these “horse armies” turned out. That is - it doesn’t matter who invented stirrups, or Christie, or the atomic bomb (which the English invented and handed over in 1941, - to the Americans, for 30 written-off destroyers, Mr. Churchill signed) - it’s important that judging by the fact that the aerodynamic institute there weren’t, in the USA, at such a level as in the USSR — all American planes, these were degraded copies of Soviet planes. All of them - crafts - were stolen from the USSR, I don’t know which ways I need to stab these Mikoyans and Armenians, respectively. services. All this was stolen from us - aerodynamics facilities, the United States simply didn’t have and don’t - these are very expensive toys for capitalism.
    1. Avis-bis
      Avis-bis April 7 2018 22: 59
      +3
      Feerichnenko ...
      Quote: kan123
      there was no aerodynamic institute in the USA

      If only they would read what NACA is and when it was founded. The rest, more epic, nonsense - no comment.